quote:VIENNA, Va. - A rule against physical contact at a Fairfax County middle school is so strict that students can be sent to the principal's office for hugging, holding hands or even high-fiving.
Unlike some schools in the Washington area, which ban fighting or inappropriate touching, Kilmer Middle School in Vienna bans all touching — and that has some parents lobbying for a change.
On the plus side, no one there will have to worry about cancer.
On the minus side, how in the heck are you supposed to go through the day without physical contact. I couldn't have gotten from one class to another in junior high without at least bumping into a person or two.
I know the idea is to stem any contact so that you don't have to worry about conflicts escalating to violence, but this seems like massive overkill.
+1 homeschooling.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I don't get the comment about cancer.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
Did they ban all sports, too?
Middle/junior high schools are as much about learning to interact with people as they are about the subject matter taught. Does banning all touching really give kids the chances to learn proper behaviors? Kids can get hurt by words, too, or by body language. What form of human interaction should we ban next?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Has there been a rash of unwanted school huggging lately that I don't know about?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
*hugs you all*
I'm SUCH an outlaw.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
first we get all the kids to dress alike, and then talk alike and finally the master plan is to get them to think alike. Oh wait I remember watching some newsreels back in the 1930's about something exactly like this it was kinda hard to understand as the narration was in German! - George Carlin.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Well, Godwin sure showed up early here.
Edit: Thanks for the correction Mr.Funny.
[ June 19, 2007, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: ricree101 ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I've been saying for years that high fives cause cancer. Apparently, JT has been listening.
*nods sagely*
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
When I was in middle school (except it was called "Junior High") high-fiving wasn't the thing to do. There was considerable necking in the halls between classes, though. I don't think that there was any rule against it, although the teachers and administrators would likely make snide comments about shipping off to war, or getting a room.
<-- high five
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: There was considerable necking in the halls between classes, though.
[derail]
Whenever someone uses the term 'necking', I picture two people randomly rubbing their necks against each other.
Am I the only one?
[/derail]
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Well, you're not the only one NOW. Thanks a lot for that mental image.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
This is crazy... The US is already a lot more touchy -feely than other countries, and now we have this...Wow.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I've been saying for years that high fives cause cancer. Apparently, JT has been listening.
*nods sagely*
Listening but not heeding. I high-five like I'm gonna win something if I keep doing it.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*mental five*
[/TheTodd]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tara: This is crazy... The US is already a lot more touchy -feely than other countries, and now we have this...Wow.
We are? Except for Japan, most of my exposure to other cultures has made uncomfortable because they were more touch-feely than I was used to.
Posted by Mr.Funny (Member # 4467) on :
quote:Originally posted by ricree101: Well, Goodwin sure showed up early here.
Psst. It's Godwin's Law, not Goodwin's law.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
I think Tara meant less touchy feely. You can kind of tell from the rest of the post.
They did a study where they watched American high school kids for three hours and French high school kids for three hours. They found American high school kids touched about 2 1/2 times in the 3 hours. Less than once an hour. The French kids? More than a hundred.
Americans have the whole touch thing all screwed up. We can't tell the difference between friendly and sexual affection, we get all hyped up if two men hold hands, fathers are afraid or embarrased to hug their own children--we've got this touch thing really, really screwed up.
This rule really, really bothers me.
I've read a lot about touch deprivation, and I think it's more serious than anybody wants to admit. Not just in infants, for whom we know it can be fatal, but for anybody.
Ostensibly, part of the reason they're doing this is because of worries over Gang stuff that can be exchanged through handshakes.
Give me a break. Talk about treating a symptom instead of a cause. Isolated, lonely kids who want a sense of belonging join gangs--we're going to solve that problem by never letting anybody touch anybody else?
It's already ridiculous that workplaces have decided that any form of touch is inherently sexual, and pretty much have instituted hands-off policies in all but the most official circumstances (maybe I'll shake your hand once when I hire you or when you've agreed to buy something from me). Those are adults.
But these are kids. They're still forming their emotional selves, still trying to find their place in the world.
They're already confused enough about the differences between sexual and non sexual affection, already craving attention from every side and trying to decide what the world around them thinks of them (and, consequently, what they should think of the world).
Now let's just isolate and suppress them even further, cut them off from yet another form of contact and interaction with the world around them, and then let's just sit back and see what it does to them.
Wonderful social experiment.
I'm glad it's being paid for by my tax dollars.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: There was considerable necking in the halls between classes, though.
[derail]
Whenever someone uses the term 'necking', I picture two people randomly rubbing their necks against each other.
Am I the only one?
[/derail]
This is especially hilarious because that's what immediately popped into my mind when I first heard it, and still continues to throw me every once in a while!
At any rate, this is yet another bone-headed attempt to address a problem through an ineffective and "what the hell were they thinking?" rule. I'm all for limiting school violence, but this is just silly.
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
Javert, you aren't the only one. Actually, when I was 16 I was telling my parents something and to clarify, they said, "Oh, so you were necking?" I was baffled. I scoffed and said, "Uh, no we were just kissing." They burst out laughing. It was the first time I had ever heard that term used. I'm not even sure what I thought they meant but I was sure we weren't doing that.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mr.Funny:
quote:Originally posted by ricree101: Well, Goodwin sure showed up early here.
And what happened earlier isn't Godwin's law. Invoking Germany isn't the trigger -- it's the mention of Hitler that does it (usually as a comparison).
For example, if I were to come into the thread and post this:
You know, Hitler used to high-five.
that would fit the bill.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I've got to disagree. Comparing somebody to or inferring that they are like Nazis falls well within the expanded Godwin umbrella.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Well, I hope they can still beat the stuffing out of each other on the sports field... Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
When I was in High School, the Adams boy was suspended for holding feet with his girlfriend under the table in biology class. That's not even necking.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
In regards to touchy-feeliness:
French:Americans :: Americans:Porteiro
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: *mental five*
[/TheTodd]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I thought the Carlin quote was funny, myself.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
I'm gonna disagree with this thread.
I read the article. The school is not being draconian. The school is trying to deal with the fact that what overcrowded middle schools seem to need is a constant subliminal message (or what the heck, put it on the PA) saying "KEEP YOUR HANDS TO YOURSELF. KEEP YOUR HANDS TO YOURSELF. KEEP YOUR HANDS TO YOURSELF. THAT IS NOT YOUR PENCIL. GIVE IT BACK. NO NOOGIES ALLOWED IN SCHOOL. DO NOT TRIP YOUR FRIENDS. POKING IS ANNOYING AND WILL MAKE PEOPLE HIT YOU."
The kid in question was not high-fiving his girlfriend, he was hugging her. That's PDA, and the school doesn't have to allow it during school, not matter how "nice" hugging may seem. (And the point about girls NOT wanting to be hugged but being uncomfortable about saying that to boys is absolutely valid.) According to the article, they don't punish kids for not following the policy, they tell them to follow it, and if a kid repeatedly ignores the instructions, then they deal with it. (No one in the article got in trouble for high-fiving, for example. Even the kid who was interviewed didn't get in trouble. He was just told to not hug his girlfriend.)
Now, it just so happens that this article showed up on Hatrack on the last day of school, when I've been trying very hard to keep a bunch of middle school boys from doing stupid things long enough to get them on the bus and HOME for the summer, where their parents can let them poke and trip and play monkey in the middle with each others' hats and generally goof around. (It's usually safer when you're dealing with fewer than 600 middle school boys at a time.) But it's been a long June, and I completely sympathize with school policy that tries to keep kids SAFE by curbing their natural instincts to annoy each other.
Posted by Leroy (Member # 9533) on :
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: They did a study where they watched American high school kids for three hours and French high school kids for three hours. They found American high school kids touched about 2 1/2 times in the 3 hours. Less than once an hour. The French kids? More than a hundred.
I remember hearing about the same study, and, what I found interesting was that they also tracked how many times the teens exhibited "self-stimulating" behaviour (like playing with their hair or jewelry--anything that would replace touch from another person). The Americans were far higher in that category. They were so deprived of touch from others that they simulated it.
Posted by NotMe (Member # 10470) on :
Liz - American middle schools might be sending subliminal messages, but I don't think it is "keep your hands to yourself". Based on my experiences (12-minute lunch, detention if somebody talks to you when the class is walking down the the hall, mandatory volunteer work, and a general disregard for quality of education) I'd say the message is more like this:
"You are being locked up until puberty is over. Do not attempt to have a childhood."
Actually, when you stop and think about it, the worst thing about the middle school environment is that you don't feel safe or allowed to form true friendships. By that age, most kids are far less willing to invite a classmate over to his house after school, particularly for a sleep-over. When switching from elementary school to middle school, the amount of time available for socializing with classmates drops sharply. The end result seems to be that kids don't get to learn any more about each other's personalities than the teachers do. This isn't enough to form a deep friendship - the kind where you can be completely at ease around your peers.
That isn't necessarily the school's fault, but it can't have gone unnoticed.
[ June 19, 2007, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: NotMe ]
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Liz, thanks for what you're doing. I always say that when the world comes to its senses the people who work with our kids will make more money than our stockbrokers.
I know that what you're doing is hard.
What I submit to you is that the reason why this is what the school is resorting to is not the school's fault. The problem is that all the school is allowed to do is make rules. That's the only way they have to deal with problems. They're not allowed to deal with the actual causes of problems, they're not allowed to deal with actual issues the kids are going through and try to help kids work them out, because whatever method for doing that they tried would be "imposing morality" of one sort or another on the kids.
Now don't get me wrong. I agree with that. I'm terrified of what kinds of morality schools would try to impose on my kids if it was allowed.
That's the problem with public schools. Because they, by nature, can't impose one specific ideology, they can't really get down into the nuts and bolts of some of these things.
That leaves them with very few options.
Of course, the first one is making rules.
And since that's the easiest to do, and the most obvious, and the most hard-and-fast, a lot of people jump to it.
So people move the rules further and further down the sequence of events that leads to the problem. If fighting is the problem, we look at what things are usually happening that lead up to the fights. Is it poking? Is it name calling? Okay, those are against the rules now.
But when enforcing the rules against the name-calling and the poking becomes overbearing, we look at what behaviors are leading to the poking and the name-calling and ban those.
The problem is, the kid doesn't really have a "poking" problem. He has a respect-for-others problem. Or he has a respect-for-authority problem. Or he is severely craving attention and this is the only way he knows how to get it. Or some kind of problem.
And when we churn kids into a huge system where they're not in the same room with the same grown-up for more than 50 minutes, and they're just a test score or a file in somebody's office, they're not really going to be given the kinds of attention they need to really learn and develop.
And telling them that they can't even have contact with each other isn't going to help that.
So I completely agree with you that this is the problem of overcrowded schools that aren't as interested in making really really amazing people out of our kids as they are in just getting by without anybody killing each other.
In other words, the school is as much a victim here as the kids are.
The fact is, our schools really won't work again until they do get smaller. Until educators actually can get as involved in their students lives the way we all pretend we want them to when we watch films like Stand and Deliver or Lean on Me or Freedom Writers, until educators are given the chance to be the ones giving out hugs to the kids that need it instead of breaking up hugs, until they can deal with what a kid is feeling instead of what a kid is doing, we're going to keep having this struggle year after year.
This rule has gone too far. Kids need touch. Lots of them are from homes that don't give it out, and that gives them a subtle message that touch is bad. Now they're coming to school and having that message reinforced.
There's any number of possible reactions to this. Some will handle it fine and still be well adjusted. Others will feel that their natural inclination towards wanting affection is wrong or bad and try to supress it or feel guilty or ashamed. Others will find unhealthy ways to experiment with affection, either with each other or with even younger kids.
I'll even go so far as to say it will make them extremely vulnerable to sexual predators.
I know the school feels its a safety issue. Safety is often about getting through the day. In this particular case, I feel they're doing that at the expense of making sure these kids are capable of dealing with life.
It probably seems that I'm being a big over-the-top dramatic about this. However, I don't think the school is even considering these issues.
And I'm one who always takes news stories like this with a HUGE grain of salt. I'm usually quick to defend schools in articles like this. Even in this story, I'm willing to bet there's more to this story than what's going on here. Usually in stories like this, there's more of a record on the kid's part than they're letting on, the kid is misrepresenting his side more than a little bit, and there was some type of major incident or incidents that lead to the action taken.
The school, as standard policy, doesn't release any rebuttal, because they don't want to be accused of spreading gossip or sharing confidential information about the case of a minor.
The reporter, completly happy to have another story about how screwed-up our schools are, goes ahead and runs the story with a little line about how school administrators won't answer their calls, making the school look like they've got something to hide instead of like they're trying to defend the public reputation of a minor.
In this case, the school prinicpal did give one line, and I'm even willing to guess that was taken semi out of context.
So I'm not condemning the school or defending the student.
What I am saying is that touch is an important--I'll even say vital--part of our development, and that this, or any, school would do well to consider that when going to this type of extreme in order to curb what I'm sure were fairly serious problems.
Edit: Because Stand by Me is NOT Stand and Deliver.
[ June 20, 2007, 01:08 AM: Message edited by: docmagik ]
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Oh, and I did want to mention that I do think it is possible for teachers to give loving, individual attention to students without imposing an ideology on them--encouraging students to become their best possible selves.
It just can't be done in the type of environment we've come to consider acceptable in our public education.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Lol, took me a while to figure out what the godwins law was referring to me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The problem i have with this I think, is that kids already don't really know what the boundaries are in social situations. Like what doc was saying.
When you create so many artificial boundaries for kids, at a time when they are supposed to be learning NATURAL boundaries, they aren't going to know what the hell is going on when those boundaries are removed. High school and junior high (what, EVERYONE went to middle school?), for better or for worse, is where kids learn these boundaries. When hugging or touching is inappropriate, and yes, when it IS appropriate, especially in public spaces. Forcing them into dark closets or forcing them to abstain entirely is only going to screw them up later in life, and these formative years is where you really don't want to screw them up.
Psychologically, I don't like what this does. I feel like we're getting closer and closer to churning out identical little clones from high school. They already fix your meals, brainwash your attitudes on a dozen different subjects, when I was in school they forced the pledge of allegience on you every day up until 10th grade or so, and now they're removing basic human contact from the mix too? What's next, no interaction AT ALL with your fellow classmates? No talking unless it refers to classroom business?
All hail the public school system, pumping out identical little American automatons since 2007.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:when I was in school they forced the pledge of allegience on you every day up until 10th grade or so
The humanity!
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
quote:It's already ridiculous that workplaces have decided that any form of touch is inherently sexual, and pretty much have instituted hands-off policies in all but the most official circumstances (maybe I'll shake your hand once when I hire you or when you've agreed to buy something from me). Those are adults.
Hah! Here they think I'm wierd for not wanting to *kiss* people who come into the office.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:when I was in school they forced the pledge of allegience on you every day up until 10th grade or so
The humanity!
Just another straw on the camel's back. Didn't really matter much to me while I was saying it, it was rote memorization, it didn't really mean anything.
Rote memorization of those kinds of pledges are almost useless, you're just regurgitating words you've been given to say, like a trained monkey looking for a banana. He doesn't much care what he has to do, he just wants his banana. So I wonder why we bother doing it at all.
Besides, I never placed any sort of value on the forced pledging, it wasn't necessarily the worst of all possible offenses, or the least, it was just there, and I suppose I could have mentioned other examples instead of that one, but it's symptomatic of a practice that seems to be edging closer and closer to stamping out carbon copies kids. Make them all memorize the same words to repeat on command, don't let them talk to each other, don't let them touch, no human contact except with the system. I just fear the slippery slope we seem to be on when more and more stories like this come out. Apologies if you read it as more dramatic than it actually was.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:But it's been a long June, and I completely sympathize with school policy that tries to keep kids SAFE by curbing their natural instincts to annoy each other.
Are they less safe over the summer because there is nobody around to prevent them from poking, tripping, or hugging one another?
quote:Based on my experiences (12-minute lunch, detention if somebody talks to you when the class is walking down the the hall, mandatory volunteer work, and a general disregard for quality of education) I'd say the message is more like this:
"You are being locked up until puberty is over. Do not attempt to have a childhood."
Yes, this is definitely more like the message sent in middle school. I've heard junior high compared to prison by kids on several occasions...
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I've got to disagree. Comparing somebody to or inferring that they are like Nazis falls well within the expanded Godwin umbrella.
I'll give you that a Nazi comparison falls under Godwin's, but the quote just referenced 1930s Germany. I wouldn't count that. Slippery slope and all that.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert:
quote:But it's been a long June, and I completely sympathize with school policy that tries to keep kids SAFE by curbing their natural instincts to annoy each other.
Are they less safe over the summer because there is nobody around to prevent them from poking, tripping, or hugging one another?
quote:Originally posted by Liz B [immediately following the part excerpted above]:
(It's usually safer when you're dealing with fewer than 600 middle school boys at a time.)
[ June 20, 2007, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I've got to disagree. Comparing somebody to or inferring that they are like Nazis falls well within the expanded Godwin umbrella.
I'll give you that a Nazi comparison falls under Godwin's, but the quote just referenced 1930s Germany. I wouldn't count that. Slippery slope and all that.
The Nazi Party was well in power during the 1930s.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"Yes, this is definitely more like the message sent in middle school. I've heard junior high compared to prison by kids on several occasions..."
Newsflash. Middle school students have always described school as a prison. It is one of the oldest cliche-metaphors going.
As a teacher, I know that kids, bless them, get out of control, and that the media, bless them, love to highlight these "ridiculous" policies, and that public schools(darn them and their free educational system!) are often seen as pumping out automatons.
The truth is, the day we can actually mold a child's brain is far off. From what I see, people come out of school just as weird and different as ever. But I think Doc has hit on a truth, which lies under the surface: we Americans don't teach our children manners, and we are uncomfortable with touch and are never quite sure how to deal with it.
I cannot tell you the nimber of times I give something to a child who does not say, "Thank you." In fact, the child often wonders aloud why he or she is not getting more.
My job should not be to teach manners. My own children go to school with the idea that, if their grades are off a little, that is mostly OK, but if their effort and behavior comments are poor, they can kiss their social lives good-bye. It is my job to teach them how to behave, not the teacher's.
That said, as a teacher, I am making up for this all day long. I take the time to stop my lesson to talk about why this or that behavior is "not OK" (yes, I use that annoying term, sorry) because it affects the group and the community, and we are a community, bla bla bla.
Our schools are too big. Our classes are too big. Our children are over-scheduled, and do not know what to do with free time. Our teachers assume too much. It is OK to tell a sixth grader how you expect them to behave in your class and in the hall. They should know it, in fact they do know it, but they figure that if you don;t tell them, they are free to do what they want. They are adolescents, and this is The Way. We(general we) are afraid to tell our kids to sit down and shut the heck up, because we might impinge on their personal rights. In their heart of hearts, though, kids know they need a structure to bounce around in. As long as the structure is secure and safe, we can stop micromanaging and let kids be the little houses of id that they are.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I've got to disagree. Comparing somebody to or inferring that they are like Nazis falls well within the expanded Godwin umbrella.
I'll give you that a Nazi comparison falls under Godwin's, but the quote just referenced 1930s Germany. I wouldn't count that. Slippery slope and all that.
The Nazi Party was well in power during the 1930s.
So? Slippery slope, mi amigo. Does any reference to the 30s and 40s become a Godwin's Law? Any reference to Germany? Any reference to WWII? What if I make a reference to Wolfenstein? I'm just saying that makes for an awfully large umbrella.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Every reference? No. But when "1930s Germany" is being used as an euphemism for "Nazi German", yes.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Actually, when you stop and think about it, the worst thing about the middle school environment is that you don't feel safe or allowed to form true friendships. By that age, most kids are far less willing to invite a classmate over to his house after school, particularly for a sleep-over. When switching from elementary school to middle school, the amount of time available for socializing with classmates drops sharply. The end result seems to be that kids don't get to learn any more about each other's personalities than the teachers do. This isn't enough to form a deep friendship - the kind where you can be completely at ease around your peers.
This was not my experience. I formed very deep friendships in middle school, most of which lasted through high school and many that still exist now that I'm post-college.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Newsflash. Middle school students have always described school as a prison. It is one of the oldest cliche-metaphors going.
Yes... but this is a rather big problem, isn't it?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Hey, Teacher! Leave us kids alone ...
======
Edited to add: Pink Floyd references aside, I do agree this is a big problem. It is, though, unavoidable (I think) when you are dealing with groups this size. Properly regulated individual apprenticeships would be much better, but we are not willing to fund them.
My thoughts are surely colored by my recent experience. I had to take a group of new medical students on a tour of the facilities. This is a walk-around tour that takes less than 10 minutes to do with a similar-sized group of professional MDs [who are generally brusque, time-driven, and driven to get things done fast]. I told the students that if they stayed close, didn't chatter amongst themselves, and moved quickly, they could have 45 minutes of the allotted hour for break.
Instead, they spread out all over the place, lingered behind and had to be individually herded, and continued on with private conversations while all needed to be paying attention (and thus needed to be shushed each time, and the potential wounded feelings managed adroitly, etc.). So, it took 50 minutes in all, and they had 10 minutes for lunch.
*sigh
I realized then the value of boot camp. Mind you, this didn't make me proud of myself, but I really really wanted to say "hut, two, three, four" and have people actually move forward.
Were there only three of them, it would have worked fine. But the dynamics of a group of 12 undisciplined people is completely different. I can't imagine herding 30 at once.
[ June 20, 2007, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: When I was in High School, the Adams boy was suspended for holding feet with his girlfriend under the table in biology class. That's not even necking.
Holding feet? How the heck does that work? Were their big toes opposable?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
This all reminds me of "Teenagers" by "My Chemical Romance."
Its a good tune IMO, you can watch the music video on youtube.
The cheerleaders with gas masks were pretty awesome IMO.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
You can hold feet....
Although it would mean they were barefoot...which I could see as a problem.
-pH
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: When I was in High School, the Adams boy was suspended for holding feet with his girlfriend under the table in biology class. That's not even necking.
Holding feet? How the heck does that work? Were their big toes opposable?
I think it was interlocking the feet, like imagine going arm in arm with somebody.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I think this is utterly and completely overkill.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert:
quote:Newsflash. Middle school students have always described school as a prison. It is one of the oldest cliche-metaphors going.
Yes... but this is a rather big problem, isn't it?
No. I think it is a natural part of adolescent development to see adults, the rule-makers, as oppressors.
Many teachers who enjoy being popular with children become the cool teachers who don't follow the rules and let kids get away with them. When I look back over my years of being in school, I have a good deal of the "ew" factor when I think of them.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Edited to add: Pink Floyd references aside, I do agree this is a big problem. It is, though, unavoidable (I think) when you are dealing with groups this size.
I know there are many kids who go to camps that have hundreds of kids, yet they do not describe the camps as prisons. I also know for a fact that the same kids who said Middle School was like a prison also said their Elementary Schools did not feel that way - despite the fact that Elementary Schools (at least where I live) contain hundreds of kids as well. Thus I don't think the number of kids alone makes it unavoidable. Rather, I'd argue that the structure of the secondary school system is what makes it unavoidable.
quote:I think it is a natural part of adolescent development to see adults, the rule-makers, as oppressors.
Again, if this is the case, why aren't all adult-run activities considered oppressive? A great many kids are involved in at least some sort of adult-run activity that they enjoy. Many others are involved in activities that their parents force them to do, but that I suspect they don't consider oppressive. In fact, I can't think of anything other than school from when I was younger that I considered to be prison-like.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:We(general we) are afraid to tell our kids to sit down and shut the heck up, because we might impinge on their personal rights.
Personally, I very rarely see this idea in practice. Far more often I see adults telling their kids (and kids they don't even know at all) to shut up and sit down and behave, often through threateningly clenched teeth or with hands of steel wrenching the kid's arm off.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Many teachers who enjoy being popular with children become the cool teachers who don't follow the rules and let kids get away with them.
Elizabeth, when my daughter heard I was going back to school to get my education degree, she begged me not to become the "cool teacher" that wanted to be every students' friend. Teachers like that, in her words, are "sad."
Xap, I think that it's a bit unfair to compare middle school to summer camp. Summer camp is two weeks and completely voluntary, there is no law that says you must go to summer camp. Middle school on the other hand is required. And the big difference between elementary school and secondary schools isn't the way it's run or structured, but the age of the kids. In fact, secondary schools offer kids more freedom of choice. My daughter gets to determine her schedule and take several elective classes per year.
Yet, as the teachers here have pointed out, the "school is a prison" attitude many kids have in middle school persists. I think it's a function of adolescence, not anything the schools are doing wrong.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Xap, I think that it's a bit unfair to compare middle school to summer camp. Summer camp is two weeks and completely voluntary, there is no law that says you must go to summer camp.
Not to mention the lack of required curriculum.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I go to Prince William County Schools, which are the schools right beside the ones in Fairfax County. I can tell you that they may honestly have a legit claim when it comes to overcrowded schools and gang activity because just 3 years ago, when I was in middle school, there were some pretty high profile gangs getting involved in trying to recruit kids at school. There were a ton of fights, and there was so much of a problem of overcrowding that they eventually turned a high school that had just been finished being built into a Middle School. Now that school, which draws from like 30 different communities, has the responsibility of keeping these 4000 kids away from the drugs and guns that come with the nieghborhoods they live in. The school I attended wouldn't allow guys to wear pink shirts, because at the time it was a gang sign. Northern Virginia honestly isn't the rich suburb that everybody thinks it is.
However, a lot of this also has to do with the fact that many of the principles and administrators of the middle schools in my area are well over 50, which means that they may have a different set of morals than the kids and the parents. This may also be influencing their decision, especially in the case that the article provided cited. A lot, I repeat, a lot of the problem is caused by the fact that Northern VA is growing way too quickly for the current school system to catch up, and this means that there will always be kids in school who feel that they have lost their personal space.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"The school I attended wouldn't allow guys to wear pink shirts, because at the time it was a gang sign."
This is a good point, and one the media would pick up on and say, "Can you believe this? They are outlawing pink shirts in schools!" For a while, it was the one rolled pants leg. The colored bandanas. Sometimes, I could see how a high-five could be an act of violence. It sounds crazy, out of context, but kids are sometimes diabolically brilliant at sending messages of harm to others.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"However, a lot of this also has to do with the fact that many of the principles and administrators of the middle schools in my area are well over 50, which means that they may have a different set of morals than the kids and the parents."
Exactly. Those darned baby-boomers were all so rigid in their morals, growing up in the Sixties and all.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elizabeth: Exactly. Those darned baby-boomers were all so rigid in their morals, growing up in the Sixties and all.
No, don't take it the wrong way, but I mean there is obviously a large generation gap. A lot of what was not acceptable then is acceptable now and vice versa.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I am not taking it the wrong way. There is always a generation gap. It is just that, if anything, an administrator in hsi or her fifties has been through some pretty liberal times.(they may not be liberal, of course, but it was a time of great change) The fact remains that middle school kids, and high school kids, are all about testing the limits, and finding out what the boundaries are. It doesn't matter who is in charge(though some people are decidedly better administrators than others)
I think Mark Twain said what I am thinking better than I am trying to say it:
"When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."
(sometimes the quote is "when I was sixteen" but you get the point.)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
While I sympathize with the parents who think kids should be allowed to shake hands and hug one another, I totally understand where the school is coming from on this one.
There are three big problems the school needs to control.
1. fighting (self evident) 2. Gangs (hand shakes and high fives are often gang behavior) 3. Sexual harassment
All of these are serious problems that the school needs to keep undercontrol. While as a responsible adult its seems that one should be able to distinguish between touching as part of one of these three problems and normal healthy human contact, we aren't talking about reasonable adults. We are talking about middle school kids many of whom see it as their role in the world to push the boundaries set by adults.
Furthermore, its often difficult to draw a clear line. How does a rule distinguish between the guy that is touching a consenting girl friend and one who is harassing a girl with unwanted touching? How do you make rules that have clearly defined lines without being overly complex? I recently spend a week as an adult leader for a group of 15 year olds and while most of them were responsible and cooperative, a few were a real pain in the neck.
I know very well that if the rules allowed appropriate touching, the Principal and teachers would get arguments from every student ask to stop inappropriate behavior. I suspect thats how they ended up with this super strict rule to begin with.
"She was fine with me kissing her saturday, how was I supposed to know she didn't want her bum pinched today"
"We weren't fighting, it was all in fun"
"Those weren't gang handshakes, we learned them in boyscouts."
When dealing with teenagers its often easier to make a simple strict rule than to deal with every case individually.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
quote:How does a rule distinguish between the guy that is touching a consenting girl friend and one who is harassing a girl with unwanted touching?
I think if you managed to it in your sentance, they can manage to do it in the rule.
Just sayin'.
Let me give you an example you might relate to.
Let's say the group of boys you were watching was closer to junior high age. 12, rather than 15.
And while a few of them were a real pain in the neck, a couple of them are great boys. Never a problem. They get along with each other really well. They pal around a lot, they play games together, they're the best of friends. Like the lady sang about in that song in Fox and the Hound.
And while they're walking one of the days, one of them puts his arm around his buddy as they talk. They've never been closer.
But you've got this rule about no touching. And while you realize there's nothing wrong with what they're doing, just because you don't want to have an argument later with somebody else about some other form of contact, you make him take his hand off his shoulder.
He's not in trouble, you don't yell at him, you just go, "Uh-uh, guys," and make them break the embrace.
Well, both boys were enjoying the affection. They saw nothing wrong with it, and they saw nothing sexual about it. But now they've been sent the message that it's "wrong."
So they're left with the message that affection is wrong, which implies that enjoying affection is wrong. Which makes them think they're bad for wanting something that, to be perfectly honest, there's nothing wrong with.
Where does this go? Maybe nowhere. Maybe they both just shrug and go on. Or maybe one of them starts to think that maybe the affection was more sexual than he thought it was, otherwise why would it be wrong? Or, they go on with their friendship, but it's still kind of awkward, because now before they can spontaneously show affection in healthy ways, they always have to think about it and wonder if it's okay or not.
I am not just saying, "Oh, that's a silly rule they made up for no reason." I understand they have reasons for making the rule. Everybody who's ever so much as seen a movie about teenagers understands why they made this rule, let alone people who've worked with them.
What I'm suggesting is that even through they legitimate reasons for making it, if enforced, this rule will cause actual, real harm to the good kids.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
The crux of the matter, though is that we need to educate in general about these issues, and health classes are one of the first to go in the pass-the-state-tes world.
Most of the time, if kids understand the difference, they will be OK. Some will not ever be OK with limits.
There are also an incredible amount of people who simply hate being touched. I was one. I hated hated hated being hugged, and still do, in general, unless I feel very comfortable with someone.
What I tell fifth graders is just that. I tell them how different people have different comfort levels. One great thing to do is the proximity test. Have kids(or adults!) stand in a line facing a partner. Start the other partner about ten steps away, and come a step closer. The people on the line not moving have to be honest about when they feel the "ew" factor take over. Mine is pretty far away. Some people are OK with someone coming right into their faces.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Xap, I think that it's a bit unfair to compare middle school to summer camp. Summer camp is two weeks and completely voluntary, there is no law that says you must go to summer camp. Middle school on the other hand is required.
So do you think that if there was a law requiring summer camp for adolescents, the kids would consider it a prison?
I'm not sure that you are giving adolescents enough credit when you suggest their thoughts on school are just a phase. My suspicion is that adults, if subject to the same envirnoment that exists for students in many middle and high schools, would feel it is like a prison too. I'm inclined to think that the structure of the school is much more to blame, and that there are probably schools out there that do not feel like a prison to the kids.
quote:So they're left with the message that affection is wrong, which implies that enjoying affection is wrong.
Or they are left with the message that adults/teachers have no common sense about what is right and what is wrong. That lack of credibility would be a problem if adults/teachers are then asked to teach kids to have character, or to not do drugs, etc.
Posted by Leroy (Member # 9533) on :
quote:[/QB]Originally posted by docmagik: But you've got this rule about no touching. And while you realize there's nothing wrong with what they're doing, just because you don't want to have an argument later with somebody else about some other form of contact, you make him take his hand off his shoulder. [/QB]
The problem is that schools can't treat students fairly, because they have to treat them the same. School officials know that any time they deal with something on a case-by-case basis, they are at risk for being sued.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Schools are often so unreasonable when it comes to rules that the teachers themselves fall into the traps that they were trying to avoid in the first place. When you get disciplined for running, when you were running away from somebody who is trying to knock your lights out, then there is a problem. The school I went to said that you weren't allowed to defend in a fight, even if it was more than one person. Sometimes I can see what these types of rules try to acheive, but at the same time they need to understand that they have to let kids have at least the impression that they can have at least a bit of freedom.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The school I went to said that you weren't allowed to defend in a fight, even if it was more than one person.
This was one of the very few rules I considered fundamentally immoral.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: The school I went to said that you weren't allowed to defend in a fight, even if it was more than one person.
So, you were supposed to just stand there and let them beat the crap out of you? Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
It worked for Gandhi...
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by littlemissattitude:
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: The school I went to said that you weren't allowed to defend in a fight, even if it was more than one person.
So, you were supposed to just stand there and let them beat the crap out of you?
This rule, whether implicit or explicit, in my experience, is darn near universal in high schools in America.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: It worked for Gandhi...
Are you contending that it is moral to use the coercive power of the state to punish someone for physically stopping an aggressor from physically damaging them?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think the point of the rule is to discourage fighting period. Alot of excessive use of force is excused with the, "I was just defending myself" line of defense.
I mean look at Ender, he killed (though accidental) that other boy out of, "defense" because he knew that if he did not make an example of him he would have to deal with that boy and others in the future.
Still though giving both the agressor and the defender the same punishment seems wrong to me, at least in cases where its clear who started it.
edit: I just realized Ender kills Bonzo as well and arguably he was simply attempting to disable Bonzo's ability to keep fighting. I was referencing the bully at the beginning in my post.
[ June 21, 2007, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Are you contending that it is moral to use the coercive power of the state to punish someone for physically stopping an aggressor from physically damaging them?
Sometimes yes, it is.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by littlemissattitude:
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: The school I went to said that you weren't allowed to defend in a fight, even if it was more than one person.
So, you were supposed to just stand there and let them beat the crap out of you?
He said the only thing you could do was run away or scream for help, that was it. It was like 'Ok just let them kill you, don't worry we'll give them a couple hours of detention afterwards.'
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert:
quote:Are you contending that it is moral to use the coercive power of the state to punish someone for physically stopping an aggressor from physically damaging them?
Sometimes yes, it is.
How about in this situation and, if so, why?
Posted by JLM (Member # 7800) on :
This entire thread strengthens my opinion that the entire school system should be scrapped for private schools funded by vouchers.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Yes, JLM, private schools have no strict rules, especially Catholic schools.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
quote: I've been saying for years that high fives cause cancer. Apparently, JT has been listening.
That is from a sketch on Mad TV. They were doing a skit on Antique Roadshow from the future. They made a comment about how it was before they knew that high fives were what causes cancer.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I generally favor the idea of vouchers, but I haven't seen any reason to think that private schools are less inclined to make rules like this one.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
EG -- you are correct. It took place in the year 3000, and they were looking at things from the year 2000. One was a cell phone, and they mentioned that back then, people thought that they caused cancer, but of course, we know now that it is high fives that cause cancer.
It's been a running joke on Galactic Cactus, Jon Boy's forum, for quite some time.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: The school I went to said that you weren't allowed to defend in a fight, even if it was more than one person.
All the public schools I went to had this same policy. I was in several fights from 6th grade on. I was never the initial physical aggressor, but I did have a mouth, and much to my regret, I used it. I would defend myself and get suspended for 5 days and not be allowed to make up ANY missed tests or work.
I found it completely unfair that the person who initiated violence gets the same punishment as one who defends themselves. That is my biggest complaint. I can understand that sometimes kids will say, "I was only defending myself" all too often, but a lot of the times, they are being truthful. Sometimes kids really are simply defending themselves from violence. To talk about Gandhi again, and eye for an eye may very well make the world blind, but can't we stop people from taking our eye out in the first place (i.e. preventing them from really beating the crap out of you)?
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elizabeth: It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.
Then it's fun and games in the dark. Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
But without touching, of course.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I generally favor the idea of vouchers, but I haven't seen any reason to think that private schools are less inclined to make rules like this one.
Agreed. And I say this as someone with experience teaching in four private schools, and having kids in another three. (Not all at once. )
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:How about in this situation and, if so, why?
In middle school fights, at least from what I remember, it is usually the case that both parties see themselves as defending themselves. Here's the sort of fights that often happen: -One person is teased. He defends himself by fighting back. The other then defends himself by fighting too. -One person playfully or accidently hits/hurts another kid. That kid then defends himself by fighting back. The first kid then defends himself by fighting too. -Two kids get in an argument. Both act aggressively toward the other and eventually a fight starts, or they challenge one another to a fight at a later time.
I don't ever remember seeing a fight in middle school where some aggressive kid just jumps a victim and starts physically attacking him. I'm sure that happens, but it is much more rare than a fight that evolves from some other dispute.
That means that punishing only the one who starts physically fighting first would be unfair. As often as not, a victim who is getting teased can throw the first punch. Are you going to punish the victim there for starting the fight and let the instigator off? The instigator will say he was just defending himself, after all - and he was.
So, yes, in that case it is moral to punish the person who fights back to defend himself, because otherwise it would make fairly assigning punishment impossible. Furthermore, the students need to be taught that both sides typically are losers when fights occur - that being in the moral right does not stop one from being hurt or punished when you decide to turn things into a physical fight. That's a lesson that will serve them well as adults.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
quote:-One person playfully or accidently hits/hurts another kid. That kid then defends himself by fighting back. The first kid then defends himself by fighting too.
Thus the no-touching rule in middle schools...
(And that characterization of middle school fights is very accurate, in my experience.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In middle school fights, at least from what I remember, it is usually the case that both parties see themselves as defending themselves. Here's the sort of fights that often happen: -One person is teased. He defends himself by fighting back. The other then defends himself by fighting too. -One person playfully or accidently hits/hurts another kid. That kid then defends himself by fighting back. The first kid then defends himself by fighting too. -Two kids get in an argument. Both act aggressively toward the other and eventually a fight starts, or they challenge one another to a fight at a later time.
You leave out many - in my experience, most - of the fights. For example: - 3 football players try to shove someone into a locker. -someone walks up to another, punches him in the nose, and pulls back his fist to punch again.
quote:I don't ever remember seeing a fight in middle school where some aggressive kid just jumps a victim and starts physically attacking him. I'm sure that happens, but it is much more rare than a fight that evolves from some other dispute.
Your experience does not match mine - it is not more rare than the other kind. But the relative frequency is irrelevant to the larger point - the policies state that even if there is perfect evidence that force was used in defense, the defender will be punished. So difficulty of determination doesn't factor into the larger question.
quote:That means that punishing only the one who starts physically fighting first would be unfair. As often as not, a victim who is getting teased can throw the first punch. Are you going to punish the victim there for starting the fight and let the instigator off? The instigator will say he was just defending himself, after all - and he was.
So, yes, in that case it is moral to punish the person who fights back to defend himself, because otherwise it would make fairly assigning punishment impossible.
Punish the one being teased for fighting. Punish the teaser for teasing. That wasn't so hard. There are two steps to assigning punishment: determining what happened ("fact finding"). Even in the face of doubt, the fact finder must arrive at a conclusion as to what happened. Once that conclusion has been arrived at, punishment is assigned.
All of your reasons go to the first step, and is the reason I always considered punishment in school to be more concerned with convenience than justice. There was no opportunity or effort expended to determine the truth, because it was "too difficult."
It's a strange theory that we have to punish someone defending himself in order to avoid "unfairly" letting someone else off of being punished.
quote:Furthermore, the students need to be taught that both sides typically are losers when fights occur - that being in the moral right does not stop one from being hurt or punished when you decide to turn things into a physical fight. That's a lesson that will serve them well as adults.
Please. A cornered student who doesn't fight back is going to be hurt much worse. You don't have to tell someone being attacked that fighting hurts - they know it. And few adults are punished for using force if they can demonstrate that the use of force was in self defense. Even in the case where force was properly used in self defense, but the person is punished anyway, it's because of an error in fact finding, not a decision to throw one's hands in the air because attempting to find a just outcome is too hard to do.
What you're actually teaching is 1) schools, faced with difficulty in fact finding, have thrown up their hands and created a policy not based on morality or justice; and 2) the aggressor, who likely does not care about suspension, will not be deterred from attacking again.
Apparently, based on your summary of most common fights, you haven't been in that position. Good for you. However, condemning those who are in that position to face not only bullies but an absolutely unsympathetic - and not even allowing the victim to TRY to demonstrate that self defense was involved is very unsympathetic - power structure makes for a lonely, frightening, and miserable middle school existence.
It's very kind of you to want to teach them that getting punched hurts. However, they already know that.
It's rather ironic that you're taking this position, considering your on-going commentary on middle-schools being "prisons." Prison is one of the only other places where all use of force, even if proven to be in defense of oneself, is punishable.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
By the way, there seems to be difficulty in distinguishing "retaliation" from "defending oneself." It's not like there isn't a half-thousand years of very well-defined reasoning to draw on in making that distinction.
Here's the raw incident to be considered: A is in the bathroom. B comes in while C, D, E, and G block the door - escape is impossible. B punches A and draws back his fist to punch A again.
If A uses force in an attempt to prevent being hurt more, is it moral for an authority who knows these facts absolutely to punish him?
I get that the most likely result will be C, D, E, and G lying about the situation and A being punished for fighting because the authority figure decides that the use of force wasn't for defense. But that's a very different result, even with the same punishment, than the authority either refusing to investigate at all to determine if A was defending himself or the authority knowing that it was defense and punishing anyway.
Making an error in determination is a mistake by the authority and continuing victimization of A by B, C, D, E, and G. The other two are immoral acts, and A is being victimized by the authority. That's much worse.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert:
quote:Are you contending that it is moral to use the coercive power of the state to punish someone for physically stopping an aggressor from physically damaging them?
Sometimes yes, it is.
No, it isn't.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I want to clarify my question:
In a particular situation in which the punished person physically stopped an aggressor from physically harming him, it might be moral for the state to punish. There are two situations:
1) where the fact finding was conscientious, fair, provided opportunity for hearing, yet arrived at the wrong answer because of honest limitations on human capacity for fact-finding (this is bad thing, but not a moral failing unless we don't periodically try to improve our fact finding processes based on lessons learned.
2) where the use of force is disproportionate to the threatened harm, which would be unlikely (but still possible) to come into play in middle-school situations.
The policy I am against is one that states defense is never a justification for use of physical force, which is what the school policies I've been talking about state.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:2) where the use of force is disproportionate to the threatened harm, which would be unlikely (but still possible) to come into play in middle-school situations.
*nods*
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:You leave out many - in my experience, most - of the fights. For example: - 3 football players try to shove someone into a locker. -someone walks up to another, punches him in the nose, and pulls back his fist to punch again.
Again, I never saw or heard of anyone just going up and punching someone unprovoked when I was in middle school.
And if 3 football players push you up against a locker, it is NOT a good idea to try to start fighting them, unless you happen to be very good at martial arts or something. That is the best way to get hurt.
If you don't believe my characterization of middle school fights, do you have any information that would suggest otherwise. Google brought up this summary of a study :
"Among the 11-year-old pupils, a smaller percentage of fights (14.8 per cent) had no obvious immediate cause. The two most common causes of fighting at this age were aggressive retaliations to teasing (25.9 per cent) and aggressive retaliations to accidental injury/hurt (18.5 per cent)."
These are the sorts of fights I referred to. Retaliatory fights.
quote:Apparently, based on your summary of most common fights, you haven't been in that position. Good for you. However, condemning those who are in that position to face not only bullies but an absolutely unsympathetic - and not even allowing the victim to TRY to demonstrate that self defense was involved is very unsympathetic - power structure makes for a lonely, frightening, and miserable middle school existence.
Now you are making up assumptions about my background when you know nothing about it. They are false assumptions. I've seen plenty of bullies in school. Physically fighting them is one of the worst possible ways to deal with them, except in extreme circumstances. It was no coinsidence that the ones who got in the most fights were the ones who fought back the most at the least provocation.
[ June 22, 2007, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Here's the raw incident to be considered: A is in the bathroom. B comes in while C, D, E, and G block the door - escape is impossible. B punches A and draws back his fist to punch A again.
If A uses force in an attempt to prevent being hurt more, is it moral for an authority who knows these facts absolutely to punish him?
That depends on whether or not their is a rule forcing the authority to punish A in that situation.
Here's the thing about rules and laws: they don't always yield a fair result. But if following the rule is better than judging everything on a case by case basis, then following the rule can be morally justified.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And if 3 football players push you up against a locker, it is NOT a good idea to try to start fighting them, unless you happen to be very good at martial arts or something. That is the best way to get hurt.
It is if you're claustrophobic and they're trying to put you in the locker.
quote:That depends on whether or not their is a rule forcing the authority to punish A in that situation.
Here's the thing about rules and laws: they don't always yield a fair result. But if following the rule is better than judging everything on a case by case basis, then following the rule can be morally justified.
Considering the ones following the rules were the ones making the rules, the distinction is meaningless. But this rule MANDATES an unjust result. Such a rule is not morally justified.
quote:These are the sorts of fights I referred to. Retaliatory fights.
Fine. But the other fights do exist - large numbers of them. And the rule results in an unjust outcome.
I note that you haven't addressed the meat of my points - the distinction between fact-finding errors and the difference in harm caused by error v. unjust exercise of authority.
Posted by Zhil (Member # 10504) on :
I must be a statistical outlier, because I thought school was fun, not a prison. Also, when it comes to defending oneself, I think the opinions of the parents have a lot to do with how schools react to each individual case. One time, three bullies chased me around the school. The school also had that "don't fight back" rule, so I ran. I stupidly ran into the restroom where they cornered me, so I jumped on the lead bully and tried to bite his thumb off. The other two were freaking out and hitting me on the head. Looking back, I think it's hilarious, but at the time I was really scared and not thinking straight. I just bit harder and harder. There was blood. Mmmmmm.
In the end, I wasn't punished. The principal wanted to punish me, but he was sympathetic. I think the bullies were frequent visitors or something. My parents defended my right to self-defense, and that was the last time I was bullied. I think it worked out pretty well.
So... when it comes to bullies, do what Ender did! Utterly and completely destroy them, so no other bully even thinks about bullying you. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:when it comes to bullies, do what Ender did! Utterly and completely destroy them, so no other bully even thinks about bullying you.
The only reason this worked for Ender was that he didn't have to keep going back to school after that incident.
It did not make him a happier child.
Posted by Zhil (Member # 10504) on :
I was being a little facetious. <-- you know?
Although to say it only worked because he didn't have to go back is a bit off. We don't know how it would have worked out of he did return; we don't have that story. Unless I'm forgetting something important...
But you're right about him being unhappy. Oh so guilty!
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"Punish the one being teased for fighting. Punish the teaser for teasing. That wasn't so hard. There are two steps to assigning punishment: determining what happened ("fact finding"). Even in the face of doubt, the fact finder must arrive at a conclusion as to what happened. Once that conclusion has been arrived at, punishment is assigned."
We are lucky to have administrators who do this well. Sure, they make lots of mistakes, but it is awfully hard to figure out what went on. They do a great job of isolating the kids, getting the stories separately, matching them with witness stories, and, basically, knowing the kids pretty well in the first place.
One of the things that hurts kids in this instance is their code of kid ethics. There is a huge stigma on tattling, and for some reason, certain kids just take what happens to them without asking for help.
It is another thing we need to teach kids explicitly. When do they ask for help? If they are trying to deal with a situation on their own, they need help finsing the right things to say, and knowing when talking is not the thing to do, but getting an adult's help is.
I love teaching middle school, but I wouldn;t go back in time for any amount of money, fame, or fortune.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
When fights happen, teachers will spend about 5 minutes finding out what happened and about 30 minutes assigning punishments and detention. If it gets too complex, then they will just punish everybody, believe me.
Posted by JLM (Member # 7800) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I generally favor the idea of vouchers, but I haven't seen any reason to think that private schools are less inclined to make rules like this one.
The point of a voucher based private school system is that the parents can decide what type of school they want to send their kids to. If you are in the "no high fiving" camp, then send your kids to "Isolation Acadamy", whereas if you believe in a free for all frolicking policy then send your kid to the "Kumbaya School for Tactile Learners". The one size fits all policy of the public schools does a grave diservice to children and their parents.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"The one size fits all policy of the public schools does a grave diservice to children and their parents."
The opinion that all public schools approach education this way does a grave disservice to teachers, administrators, and schools.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
What Elizabeth said.
I'm all for a voucher-based private school system that has to educate everyone regardless of ability, disability, or desire to learn.
quote:When fights happen, teachers will spend about 5 minutes finding out what happened and about 30 minutes assigning punishments and detention. If it gets too complex, then they will just punish everybody, believe me.
I'm sorry that happens in your school! My experience has been different...administrators in our building spend HOURS trying to track down what actually happened, getting witnesses, etc.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
My favorite moment(OK, one of them) was this year. A student had gone in to the assistant principal. He had been hit. His attacker was denying the fact, even though a whole row of the cafeteria had seen it.
Assistant speaks to Attacker. Denial. Assistant speaks to victim. True story told(matches winesses) Attacker reenters room. Assistant asks attacker if she is ready to tell the whole story. Victim leaps up from his chair, closes the office door, looks straight at the assistant principal and says:
"Sometimes, it's easier for people to tell the truth with the door closed."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:We are lucky to have administrators who do this well. Sure, they make lots of mistakes, but it is awfully hard to figure out what went on. They do a great job of isolating the kids, getting the stories separately, matching them with witness stories, and, basically, knowing the kids pretty well in the first place.
That's great, Liz! I wish more schools would (and could - I know resources are tight) do this.
quote:One of the things that hurts kids in this instance is their code of kid ethics. There is a huge stigma on tattling, and for some reason, certain kids just take what happens to them without asking for help.
It is another thing we need to teach kids explicitly. When do they ask for help? If they are trying to deal with a situation on their own, they need help finsing the right things to say, and knowing when talking is not the thing to do, but getting an adult's help is.
I think they do need to know this. Teaching kids to ask for help requires that help be available. Unfortunately, the opposite lesson is too often taught - asking for help leads to highly negative consequences, so kids are discouraged from doing it.
Every single beginning of school P.E. lecture included the "if someone is hitting you, ask for help and I'll stop it." The result when practiced: "I didn't see it, so I can't do anything about it" plus later abuse from the one told on. OK, I can see not punishing based on two different stories with no support. But what didn't happen was increased vigilance once the matter has been brought to the teacher's attention.
One P.E. teacher's answer to an accusation of ongoing abuse was to make me wrestle the kid who had hit me. Didn't help at all, of course.
Bullying - not teasing but physical assault - was an everyday occurrence. The teachers knew this. They didn't alter their procedures at all in response, which meant that I had to accept physical abuse every single school day for four years in elementary school, 3 in middle school, and 1 in high school (although high school was only 3 days a week).
I don't know what the answer is, but the one I got was insufficient.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I learned an amazing trick from a first grade teacher, which works, when used sparingly and with the right kid/situation.
When you get two different stories, you tell the kids, OK, sounds like you two need to get your story straight first before you talk to me. They end up talking, arguing, and then either dropping it or coming back. Again, this is not for every situation, and needs to be in a safe place to begin with. (So, no "Go back into that bathroom where you say he slammed your head against the sink and get your story straight.")
Another thing I always do(and mind you, I have fifth graders, and there is a huge difference between a fifth grader and a seventh grader, even than a sixth grader). There is a complaint. I call the offender over and ask the victim to tell the story again. "Look at him, not me. Tell him, not me." It is tense and difficult for both kids, but it is hard for the offender to deny the truth when it is staring him, literally, in the face. I ask the offender to agree to knock it off, and that if I hear another report, it will go to the office.
Dag, I really don't think our school is alone in doing things Ok (for the msot part). I think the attention is placed on schools that are really messed up.
I wonder how many of those schools which get media attention are also accepting our old, outdated textbooks? Need paint so pieces of plaster don't fall on kids' heads? Have a class size of thirty plus? Have had a succession of teachers in one year for one class? Have many classes taught by substitutes?
Someone once said, or maybe it was a cartoon, "If we leave all of the children behind, then, technically, no child is left behind."
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elizabeth: "The one size fits all policy of the public schools does a grave diservice to children and their parents."
The opinion that all public schools approach education this way does a grave disservice to teachers, administrators, and schools.
Not all public schools, but definitely the ones I went to were of the "one size fits all" approach.
[ June 23, 2007, 01:08 AM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I suppose mine was a three size fits all approach, but I'm really curious how any public school with time limits and required curriculum could have a custom approach to each student. Let's face it, even going over the material tailored to several different learning styles is a disservice to me since I got it the first time and now I have to wait on you to cover it twice more.
My honors classes weren't the same as the regular or ESE classes, but the curriculum I got was exactly the same as what everyone else taking honors classes got. And we still had the three minute break between classes, assigned times to eat, dress code, and PDA rules to deal with. (For some reason, my bf putting his arm around my waist was a big deal to some of the teachers. I'm still not sure why.)
My biggest problem with my middle and high schools was that they weren't terribly honest about their requirements. My sister took Algebra I in middle school because we were told it counted for high school credit. We needed three math credits to graduate, so she needed two more. She struggled through Geometry and almost didn't pass it, but it was ok because she was done. Then when it was time to pick classes next year, they surprised her by telling her she did need another math because the Algebra from middle school only counted after she'd had three maths in high school, and they tried to force her to take College Algebra. Fortunately, my parents stepped up and fought with them about it, eventually getting her into Liberal Arts Math and securing her graduation.
Had they been completely honest with us in the first place, she'd have taken the regular middle school math and skipped all the drama later. But my schools were always shady like that. My first lessons in conflict of interest came from my guidance councilor. If you let the guy who makes the class schedule advise folks on what to take, you end up with a lot of kids in classes they don't want just so the class makes.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, I really don't think our school is alone in doing things Ok (for the msot part). I think the attention is placed on schools that are really messed up.
I agree that there are other schools out there. My school wasn't even considered "messed up" - by any standard the media notices, it was a very successful school.
quote:Not all public schools, but definitely the ones I went to were of the "one size fits all" approach.
None of mine were. Granted, there were basically 4 sizes (special needs, remedial, average, honors/AP), but that's far, far better than you suggest.
In addition, if we want to have more "sizes," we need to dedicate far more resources. How many students could a teacher actually provide truly individualized educational plans for at a time? I can't see it being more than 3 or 4 on average.
We spend about $8,000 per student per year on primary/secondary education) as of 2002-2003. That's not going to support 4 students per teacher.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm in a class right now on exceptional education, and let me tell you, I think that system is in serious trouble.
You talk about IEP's Dag, and how many a teacher can support - well, they are being asked to support a ton of them. One of my fellow classmates in this class is already teaching (it's a mixed grad/undergrad class and he's getting his master's). he's a high school history teacher. During the spring, in a class of 32, he had 18 kids with IEP's. That math's not hard to do. Over half of his students had individual education plans.
He told me after class that it was impossible to do them all. Not just because of time, but it was physically impossible. He had, for example, eight students whose IEP's required they be seated on the first row. No matter how he arranged his desks, there was no possible way to have more than six desks on a front row and leave room for kids to walk to their seats. Yet, if he violates a kid's IEP, he's in serious trouble.
The Special Ed teachers we have are vastly overworked and overwhelmed and we don't have enough of them. The move toward inclusion puts more and more kids with special needs in classrooms and puts a huge burden on the classroom teacher who is expected to meet the individual needs of these students while at the same time teaching his/her curriculum to all the other students.
Whatever we're doing right now is not working well, but I'm not sure what the answer is.
(apologies if this post went way off topic, it's just on my mind right now due to the class I'm taking)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are you contending that it is moral to use the coercive power of the state to punish someone for physically stopping an aggressor from physically damaging them? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes yes, it is.
Oh, what a bunch of nonsense.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Belle, another little quote we fifth grade teachers have, along with "You can;t make this stuff up" is:
"There's only one front row.
The funny thing is that the front row thing is rather ridiculous, and a rather standard thing to put on Ed plans or 504s of kids with attention challenges.
The front row is often the worst place for kids with an attention deficit. Why? They turn around to see what is going on behind them.
The "U" shape is my favorite, but it's main drawback is the audience members across the room.
Groups if four is my most hated configuration. I just leave the desks in a U, and move chairs when I want them to work in groups.
But yes, "inclusion" has come to mean "dumping ground," and I don;t care what anyone says otherwise. Unless you have two teachers who are working as a tem, planning, teaching, and assessing all students together, it is not inclusion. (my opinion, folks.)
It can be done, but not with 32 kids. In fact, I don;t think any effective teaching can be done with 32 kids in a room. There are teachers who can do this, sure, but what if they had half the amount of students? Imagine how effective they would be, then.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: Unless you have two teachers who are working as a tem, planning, teaching, and assessing all students together, it is not inclusion.
That's what my mom does; she's the second teacher for the inclusion kids. Her job is still next to impossible. If she can get the overheads from the other teacher in time, she makes copies to pass out so the kids don't have to take notes. But most of the time, her kids are struggling with remedial reading and math and can't keep up with whatever the teacher is doing anyway.
The worst part is that she says her students make real progress when they show up regularly and don't sleep through class. She hasn't figured out how to motivate them to want to do better.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
This thread is great. Now all homeschoolers can brag. "This is the socialization that are kids aren't getting? Pff!"
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
<-- high five
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
How the heck does that work? Were their big toes opposable?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)